Pat Buchanan--- Huffinton, Frank Rich etc -on Book TV--cspan

edited to reflect the panal-some

unbelievably boring, smug, self-satisfied hommage to....herself, and M$M (back when it MEANT something, when the NEWS was reality TV)

I know Andrew Sullivan is also on the panel

wonder who else to round it out: David Horowitz?

he used to review movies for New Times Magazine, back in the 70s

that's when I first began to appreciate him

wrong thing, etc.

right clothes, or .......

if she met Kerry - the one who would "fear" saying the wrong thing would not be Kerry. I think that during an election, candidates have to think about the effect of what they are saying.

Also, Huffington got exactly what % of the vote when she ran in the California special election? I really think that neither Hillary or Kerry need advise from a far RW talking head who became a far left wing talking head.

Fear, Smears, and queers

homophobic fuck! No thanks!

He is speaking truth to power and they don't like it.

On edit: The crowd did finally warm up to his admonitions about the mixing of fundamentalism, whether, Christian or Islamic, in politics. And the hijacking of the conservative agenda by bushco.

conservative is just another word for reactionary, no matter how much lipstick that creep tries to put on his particular pig

how's the barebacking going for you these days, Andy?

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Who's Constitution is he referring to?

protecting our allegedly guaranteed "rights."

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/03/yes_andrew_sull.html

Andrew Sullivan, pathetically, claims that he always knew that George W. Bush was mendacious and incompetent, but--look! 911!:

''Andrew Sullivan | The Daily Dish: Paul Krugman smears yours truly today.... He has one decent point: yes, I lionized George W. Bush for a while after 9/11, and, in retrospect, my attempt to place trust in him at a time of national peril was a misjudgment. But then, in times of peril, some of us feel that supporting the president, whoever he is, and hoping he gets things right, are not contemptible impulses. I should have been more skeptical. In less dire circumstances, I might have been. But some of us, in the days after 9/11, did not immediately go into partisan mode... and rallied behind a president at war. ''

Andrew is right about one thing: he did know that George W. Bush was mendacious long before 911. But 911 had nothing to do with Sullivan's lionizing Bush. Sullivan lionized Bush long before 911. On May 14, 2001, for example, we have Sullivan lionizing Bush not despite but because of his mendacity. Sullivan, you see, thought presidential lying was really kool:

''Matthew Yglesias: The Lies, The Lies: At issue are Krugman's repeated insistences that George W. Bush's economic policy is founded on a tissue of lies. Krugman is, of course, entirely correct about this.... n his May 14, 2001 column 'Downsize,' Sullivan conceded Krugman's point:

The Krugmans and the Chaits will shortly have a cow, if not a whole herd of them.... And, to be fair to these liberal critics, they're right about one thing. One of the tax cut's effects will surely be that the United States won't be able to afford a vastly expanded Medicare drug benefit. And the archaic sinkhole known as Social Security won't be shored up either. And Medicare, may the gods preserve us, may even have to grow at a slightly slower rate. In fact, many of the spending programs that some still believe solve most human problems will encounter the only political resistance that matters in budgetary matters: insolvency. ''

But he doesn't have an answer about what to do. :eyes:

Buchanan says that he blames the Dems in Congress more than he blames bushco for the Iraq war because,
to paraphrase, "it was their job to stand up to bushco and demand proof of WMD etc, and they didn't do that."

OK, Pat, let me ask you this: why do you give every Republican in the land a pass on this? Are you admitting that
Rs are totally devoid of personal morals and convictions? Are you saying that the ONLY responsibility the Rs
had in this discussion was to BLINDLY support the lying president and his cabal, even if they knew it was a pack
of lies? Well, I think that's exactly what you're saying...and I think that is exactly why we are in the mess that we
are in now.

The vote on the Iraq War Resolution was as follows:

Senate 77 for, 23 against. 29 Dems voted for, 21 against. The SOLE R to vote against it was Chafee.

House: 269 for, 133 against

Sen. Robert Byrd mounted a filibuster against the vote but was cut off on a 75-25 vote.

This was an OVERWHELMINGLY Republican endorsement of Bush's lies. The Dems fought back. They did NOT rubber stamp this.
I doubt if there was a single R in the 133 House members who voted against the illegal war (maybe Ron Paul of TX).

So, Pat is busy rewriting history to fit his agenda. But the 800-lb gorilla in the room is still the absolute pass Pat gives
the Rs in the moral fortitude category.

On edit: my analysis above fails to take into account the rampant "unpatriotic, anti-American" crapola
that was being hurled at Dems and anti-war factions at the time. Taking that into account, it's even more amazing that
so many Congressional Dems had the guts to stand up for their convictions at the time!

Whipping people into a fear frenzy over non existent nuclear weapons able to hit the U.S. led to the ""unpatriotic, anti-American" crapola". Buchanan's ignoring Byrd's attempted filibuster is blatant willful ignorance. I suppose that helps to sell his book.

helped KEEP Saddam in power!

and that the REASON we went in was to depose the brutal dictator

both she and Rich disabuse him of that notion, stating the REAL and OBVIOUS reason was the fear instilled by constant raising of the threat of NUCLEAR WMDs

Sullivan reveals his true colors here

what a LIAR

Saddam that the U.S. is helping to keep in power as we speak.

being awake for a dump truck driving through a nitro-glycerin plant.

be jump into something.

I don't like him as a rule...

divided? --blames it on the culture of the 60's. Hey boy--what about our great divider in office?

thing about it.

And, as Pat has seems to think that the Ds and the Ds alone need to stand up to bush,
he should know that no hearings will be held.

:puke:

she won't be denied....

about '08 - what factors would determine? I think, is what they were discussing, Arianna actually said Diebold and voting machines!

(edited for spelling, as usual)

she got a lot more when she said his legacy would be the destruction of America

son do without, so the rich can get their money... Rich Greedy Bastards!!!!:mad:

dogs in Iraq also getting Kevlar vests

I posted a thread with pictures the other day

get pissed off about to me... I am glad I miss that thread...

Would be nice to protect all the humans first don't you think..

But then again, those dogs are there to protect these soldiers as well, so how can I really get mad about this??

I am totally confused on this....:crazy:

I do on a daily basis...:hug:

little gathers by the lake.

People forget the absolute hell these soldiers are going through..

Men and Women dying at an alarming rate the past couple of months and it is not mentioned...

I know people at DU care and that is why I am here to be those people.....

Because just like with Vietman, the American people as a whole, are not solidly behind it, not willing to send their own sons and daughters to die.

The Iraqi insurgents and their allies (or perhaps, more accurately in some cases, foreign interlopers) will glady going on dying for decades for their country just like the Viet Cong was 30 years ago.

sets you free and they are not fighting with right on their side... Yes it needs to end now.. Close to 2500 soldiers killed...

abortion etc to stir up people. Said the younger baby bombers crowd has settled that issue--yet people like rove stir it up.

the crowd.

Lynne Scher chimes in w/"Young people don't vote"

care to ask WHY?

perhaps, ignorant as they are, they've been conditioned by years of school/TV not to buy the BS they've been sold?

they know their votes don't matter (not for the same reason those here think that)

how about "still"



whenever they stand up, they get described as shrill, crazy, shouters, loony, etc.

it's all about the media

think "THe dems have no PLAN"

the media will NOT allow them to get their message out, weak as it may seem.

says Pat B.

hahahaha

he says it might be good for pugs if dems get one house, so country will see just how BAD dems are

says pugs might lose BOTH houses if things remain as they are today

"I'm a dork"

and with good reason...

he referenced listening to an old Ronald Reagan speech!

what a wise man that was......who wrote the words for him? Peggy, the hoarse whisperer, Noonan

Sullivan!! whow.

:rofl:

sullivan: the man who destroyed conservatism

Arianna: the man who did his best to destroy AMERICA

Buchanan wouldn't answer: "read p. 272 of my new book; I don't want to give it away"

se bold vision turned Irag into a democracy--then he laughed.--as did others.

goes after your really....:rofl:

one thing we DO know is that Iran is trying to provoke a conflict?

who told you that?

Cheney?

Feith?

did they show you the Echelon transcripts?

good one, you halfwit

to grasping at straws re Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton. She is becoming the tepid, brown suit considering pre-convention speech Al Gore of 00'and the constantly punch pulling John Kerry of 04'.

to the Left).

t I think).

I wonder if it's the only writer who Abramof talked to

I heard him somewhere, and he was pretty apologetic towards him

next: calls for Andrew Sullivan

already busy, immediately

idiot moderator: Did you feel you were getting a little bit ganged up on?

Sullivan: I ALWAYS enjoy getting ganged up on!

I swear on the most holy of holies he actually SAID it!

he DID!

:)